Slashdot Mirror


Burt Rutan On his Upcoming X-Prize Attempt

dkleinsc writes "The BBC is running an article about Burt Rutan, the head of Scaled Composites and creator of SpaceShip One. He talks about his motivation (besides fame and a big pile of cash) for the project."

149 comments

  1. He's doing it for the chicks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Do you know how well "Have you ever had sex in outer space?" works as a pick-up line?

    1. Re:He's doing it for the chicks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only trouble is that it'll have to wait till they get to low Earth orbit -- I last too long for just a quick "up and down!"

    2. Re:He's doing it for the chicks by crymeph0 · · Score: 1

      He's not just doing it for the chicks, he's doing it for the alien chicks. From the Article:

      As for ET? Rutan hopes there is local life on other planets, because it would be fun to do what holidaymakers do: "interface them".

      --
      It should be illegal to say that freedom of speech should be limited.
    3. Re:He's doing it for the chicks by addaon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Do you know how well "Have you ever had sex in outer space?" works as a pick-up line?

      Yes. Yes, I do.

      --

      I've had this sig for three days.
    4. Re:He's doing it for the chicks by Witchblade · · Score: 2, Funny

      I thought that was why he grew the sideburns...

  2. headlines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i can imagine the headlines... "Bill will 'Rutan' back to earth" lol... sorry i couldnt resist...

  3. Inspiration from movies by stroustrup · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Reading this story, I am remided of the movie October Sky. For wannabe rocket scientists, this is one of the most inspirational movies.

    It's based on a true story. The protagonist is now in a very high position in NASA.

    --


    If you lost your job today, don't despair. You may die tomorrow anyway.
    1. Re:Inspiration from movies by toetagger1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Or you might just read the book: "Rocket Boys"

      Did anyone else know that the title of the book and film contained the same letters? Just goes to show how much effort they put into making the movie as close to the story in the book, and at the same time make it a good movie.

      --
      who | grep -i blond | date cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep
    2. Re:Inspiration from movies by A_carton_short_of_a_ · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your looking to deeply.... The movie was named October sky after one of the "definitive" moments in Homer Hickam's life when he saw Sputnik fly across the night sky in October in 1957.

      or should I say ... "across the October sky in 1957".

      I'm pretty sure it's chapter 2 of the book.

    3. Re:Inspiration from movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whoa! now thats far out..

    4. Re:Inspiration from movies by Xshare · · Score: 1

      Why can't it be both? The writers needed to name it , and one of em thought of that.

    5. Re:Inspiration from movies by jayrtfm · · Score: 1

      nope. Homer Hickman left NASA in 98
      see his bio http://www.homerhickam.com/about/bio.shtml

  4. 09/29/04 by kalicki · · Score: 1, Funny

    A date which will live in history?

    1. Re:09/29/04 by DigitalRaptor · · Score: 1

      One way or the other, yes, Sept 29, 2004 will go down in the history books.

      I am quite confident in Burt and his team. The man is a genius who likes simplicity and really thinks through his stuff.

      Good luck to them!

      --
      Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
    2. Re:09/29/04 by sailracer6 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, it is my birthday...

    3. Re:09/29/04 by CoolMoDee · · Score: 1

      damn man, its the day after mine (will be 19). While we are on the subjets of birthdays though, happy birthday! :-)

      --
      Jisho - A Japanese English German Russian French Dictionary for the rest of us.
    4. Re:09/29/04 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but 29/09/04 might.

    5. Re:09/29/04 by Fizzleboink · · Score: 1

      Mine too! I was just thinking about that.

    6. Re:09/29/04 by mph · · Score: 1
      Well, it is my birthday...
      Mine too. I live less than an hour north of Mojave, and I'm not working (starting a new job in a couple of weeks). So, naturally, I thought about going. I could get whatever lithographs they make with my birthday on them, and all that good stuff. I'd finally convinced myself that I could spend $35 on the parking pass... then I find out that I need to pay another $20 to FedEx the thing. That was the only shipping option, even though it absotively, posolutely did not have to get there the next day. Screw that.
    7. Re:09/29/04 by cakefool · · Score: 1

      You insensitive clod! My calendar goes up to 29/09/04

  5. Big pile of cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was under the impression that more money was being spent than he'd win on the X-Prize.

    It must be like that joke: I made a small fortune on the stock market. Problem is, I started with a large one.

    1. Re:Big pile of cash? by JarrettHere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, but if you are a principle owner in THE company who proves that common humans can visit space, and provide the means... His relatives will be happy that he did shoot for the X-Prize. (See also Joan Kroc, Wife of Ray Kroc, McDonalds Founder)

    2. Re:Big pile of cash? by Tlosk · · Score: 1

      Think of it as a big car rebate, just like how you can buy a new Ford truck and get a couple grand back. Well as mentioned in the interview with him, this has been a dream of his for a very long time and he realized that if he waited for someone else to make commercial space travel a reality he might be 90 before he would get the chance and who's going to let a 90 year old on board?

      So now he gets to do what he wanted plus a good chance of getting most of his money back to boot lol. Would you buy a new truck for 5 grand? I would.

    3. Re:Big pile of cash? by jb.hl.com · · Score: 1

      Ray Kroc didn't found McDonald's, he merely opened up franchises all over the country and then hijacked the name. The McDonald brothers founded McDonald's.

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    4. Re:Big pile of cash? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Ah, so Ray Kroc "merely" made McDonalds a world-spanning business, instead of a burger stand run by two brothers.

      I don't like their food either, but give the man some credit: He invented a new way of doing business.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    5. Re:Big pile of cash? by jcr · · Score: 1

      Ray Kroc didn't found McDonald's, he merely opened up franchises all over the country and then hijacked the name.

      He didn't hijack the name, he *bought* the name.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    6. Re:Big pile of cash? by richie2000 · · Score: 1

      He invented a new way of doing business.P I was going to say "Bill Gates did too", but then I remembered Al Capone...

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    7. Re:Big pile of cash? by richie2000 · · Score: 1

      Well, I should have used the 'Preview' button!

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
  6. Great interview by apsmith · · Score: 4, Insightful
    After hearing that NASA wasn't going to fulfil his dream of routine spaceflight in his lifetime:

    "The first choice was to give up, and admit that I would never go into space, never see that black sky. The other choice I had was to do something about it."


    Putting dreams into actions - gotta love the guy!
    --

    Energy: time to change the picture.

  7. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Gates foundation has donated Billions to Global Health care issues.

  8. September 29 at the Mojave airport, California by Degrees · · Score: 5, Informative
    If you live in Southern California, its not too far to go to see the launch. From the Ansari web site:
    launch currently scheduled for approximately 6:47 a.m.
    Mojave Civilian Flight Test Center
    Address: Mojave Airport
    1434 Flight Line Mojave, CA 93501
    Parking is $35. My boss is letting some of us trade 1/2 day off Wednesday for some Saturday work - we will car pool and split the fee. There is more expensive, premium parking available - but we can't tell what that buys us.

    Lucky me, I have cool boss. ;-)

    --
    "The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
    1. Re:September 29 at the Mojave airport, California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Lucky me, I have cool boss. ;-)

      Your boss isn't that cool if he's making you come back in on Saturday.

    2. Re:September 29 at the Mojave airport, California by Nos. · · Score: 1

      I was planning to head to the Canadian launch on Oct 2 or 3 (can't remeber which) its only about a 2 hour drive from here. However, with the delay, I don't know if I'll be able to do when they try again. Keeping my fingers crossed. Even if they don't win (or do it first) it will still be something to see.

    3. Re:September 29 at the Mojave airport, California by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Lucky me, I have cool boss. ;-)

      Your boss isn't that cool if he's making you come back in on Saturday.


      You and the bozo who modded it "+1, Insightful" must never have had a real job.

      His boss is cool.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    4. Re:September 29 at the Mojave airport, California by Psychotext · · Score: 1

      One reason his boss is pretty cool is that he's letting a bunch of them go at the same time. My assumption is that these staff aren't customer facing, or at least that they have enough left to cover any demand. The whole half day off thing isn't that cool generally (Especially as it's being made up)... I've worked for a number of places that have pooled my unpaid overtime (Salaried, or at least I was then) and let me take it in extra holiday at some point or another throughout the year (Half day here, half day there if I wanted).

      Now that's cool.

      --
      People that believe in their opinions don't post AC.
    5. Re:September 29 at the Mojave airport, California by Degrees · · Score: 1
      Right - he is letting several of us go; only the on-call guy doesn't get to go. Company rules are that the on-call person has to stay close enough to make a one hour response if called in. It is too bad, but the guy that has on-call duty this week would *really* like to go, too.

      The other aspect is that due to the change in California labor law, we recently all changed to be hourly employees. So trading a half day Wednesday for a half day Saturday is good, as it means I'll still get 40 hours this week, and I didn't have to take it as vacation.

      --
      "The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
  9. Re:Ironic by UncleJam · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can't but like Paul Allen sometimes just because of how insane he is. Watching an old Windows 1.0 "commercial" he did, it almost seems like a parody of a computer commercial. It might be, but I cannot tell ;)

    They talk a lot about space tourism in the article, but I believe that is a long, long way off still. The first thing that would happen is private launch of payloads, but that already happens..
    Even so, even something like $20,000 is cheap for a ticket and right now you'd only get a 10 second ride in space, and back down ya go.

  10. Well... by Lifix · · Score: 5, Interesting

    X-prize => Priviate citizen's in space => tourist's in space => priviate "space resort" => Advertisements in space => advertisements visible from earth in space => coca cola constlation / starbucks galaxy? Serriously, if we have tourists in space, they are gonna want to spend time up there, so we will need long term staff in space... Space tourourism (sp) is not a feasible buisness for many years to come imo.

    --
    In nature, there are neither rewards or punishments, there are only consequences.
    1. Re:Well... by tftp · · Score: 1
      Space tourourism (sp)

      Indeed, you misspelled "space terrorism". Diamonds are forever, you know :-)

    2. Re:Well... by 0racle · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, a great man once complained, "This place is great and all but its just so artificial. The gravity, the air, the gophers. You might as well stay on Earth."

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
  11. Wrong by voidptr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The X-Prize is a 10 million dollar privately funded prize, not a 1 million dollar government program. NASA, the FAA, and any other agency of any government have nothing to do with it other than issuing launch waivers.

    It has everything to do with kickstarting private, commercial space flight.

    --
    This .sig for unofficial government use only. Official use subject to $500 fine.
  12. what, no tiles? by ir0b0t · · Score: 3, Informative

    The description of the reentry strategy includes none of the bazillion tiles stuck all over the shuttlecraft. This seems like a better approach --- very simple and apparently a lot less heat. Did anyone notice that a Canadian team is also competing for the prize? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3539018.stm

    --
    I'm laughing at clouds.
    1. Re:what, no tiles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
      The description of the reentry strategy includes none of the bazillion tiles stuck all over the shuttlecraft. This seems like a better approach --- very simple and apparently a lot less heat.
      Thats because this is a suborbital flight and not an orbital one so there is not the insane amount heat generated when Rutan's craft re-enters the atmosphere.
    2. Re:what, no tiles? by mj_1903 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Soyuz, etc. did not use tiles. SpaceShipOne is using similar ablative compounds to remove the minor heat that it produces.

      Of course, if they were doing orbital flights where you would have to remove the insane amounts of kinetic energy they would probably use carbon-carbon or something similar. Tiles are too complex a beast for extremely reliable space flight.

    3. Re:what, no tiles? by ir0b0t · · Score: 1

      Is there an advantage to orbital flight? Why couldn't an orbiting craft stop orbiting before reentry and return to the atmosphere like SS1?

      --
      I'm laughing at clouds.
    4. Re:what, no tiles? by uberdave · · Score: 1

      Not only is there a Canadian team, but there are actually TWO Canadian teams, as well as two teams from the UK, and one each from Romania, Argentina, Israel, and Russia.

    5. Re:what, no tiles? by LagDemon · · Score: 1

      When you are 22000 miles up in the air, the only thing stopping you from falling is the fact that you are orbiting. If you de-orbit, you better be prepared to deal with the energy generated by a 22000 mile fall.

      --


      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
    6. Re:what, no tiles? by AeroNate · · Score: 5, Informative

      Is there an advantage to orbital flight? Why couldn't an orbiting craft stop orbiting before reentry and return to the atmosphere like SS1? In order to stop orbiting, they have to slow down from very high speed, and that requires getting rid of a huge amount of kinetic energy. In the case of the shuttle, capsules, etc, that energy is just turned into heat by the atmospheric drag. If you want to avoid that heating, you need to slow down in a different way. The only other choice is to use an engine burn, and that is hugely expensive because it means that you have to lift a lot of extra fuel into orbit along with your payload. In fact, it takes as much fuel to slow down as it takes to get into orbit in the first place (unless you get rid of some mass by tossing out a satellite). But carrying that extra "deorbit" fuel means that your original load on the launch pad has to be much much bigger too. It is better to just let the atmosphere slow you down.

    7. Re:what, no tiles? by jcr · · Score: 1

      The description of the reentry strategy includes none of the bazillion tiles stuck all over the shuttlecraft.

      Since it goes more or less straight up and straight down, Spaceship One has a lot less atmosphere to plow through than the space shuttle, and it comes down a whole lot slower.

      When a shuttle re-enters, it has to lose all of the momentum that was keeping it in orbit. Some of that is done by firing their main engines against their orbital path, but the rest of that energy becomes heat in the airframe and the atmosphere.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    8. Re:what, no tiles? by Nutria · · Score: 2, Informative

      When you are 22000 miles up in the air

      Relatively few satellites are up in geosynchronous orbit (35,785 km / 22,236 miles).

      The vast majority are in low-earth orbit: ~200-~500 miles up.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    9. Re:what, no tiles? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Please explain to me how you would like to "stop orbiting". I mean, it's not like you can just pull over to a gas station...

      An orbital spacecraft has a really ridiculous amount of kinetic energy. Just like your brakes get hot when your car slows down, the spacecraft gets hot when the atmosphere slows it down. The only other option would be to bring along almost as much fuel as you used to get up into space, and try to do a really fast burn to slow yourself down. This is problematic for a very large number of reasons, not the least of which is that you'd need more fuel to launch the fuel you wanted to use to de-orbit.

      Atmospheres are really, really good braking systems.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    10. Re:what, no tiles? by ir0b0t · · Score: 1

      Well --- bearing in mind that I am *not* a rocket scientist and bear a much closer resemblance to Wile E. Coyote --- I originally thought, "Well maybe the pilot could just fly a really big loop and get rid of the extra momentum that way . . . ." Then I remembered that the ship was in a vacuum, so the loop wasn't such a (ahem!) *hot* idea. Then I thought, "Too bad the pilot couldn't just fly into something to slow the ship down . . . you know, like a brick wall except made out of really thin bricks . . . " Then I thought, "Oooooh . . . like the atmosphere maybe?" So I *eventually* came around to seeing the problem. It just happened really, really slowly. :)

      --
      I'm laughing at clouds.
  13. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's a sad reflection of the /. bias that everything has to be turned into a bash Microsoft topic.

  14. Another news by semijoin · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is another newest story about the topic. http://mirror.metamenu.com/news.bbc.co.uk/3676312. stm

    1. Re:Another news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Moderators please note: The above link is the same as the main link in the article
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature /3676312. stm

      It would be best to resubmit this story for proper /. duplication.

  15. Any truth to the rumor . . . by ir0b0t · · Score: 4, Funny

    he's going to cue up Steppenwolf before takeoff and ushering in a new era of peaceful space exploration and mini-skirts?

    --
    I'm laughing at clouds.
    1. Re:Any truth to the rumor . . . by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      Heh, what I wouldn't give to be able to stand on a stage at the launch and play Born to be Wild. :)

      Conversely, I may just have to find a decent stream of the event and play my guitar while watching.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
  16. A Billion Dollars to fight Aids in India? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much have you ponied up to ANYTHING, troll?

  17. Parent is wrong about everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Probably never even heard of the Xprize. Nasa doesn't want competition, the government doesn't want lots of rockets taking off without control over them, large corporations don't want satellites to become cheap enough for smaller companies to get into the game (and the government tends to help the larger ones out a tad more..)

    You just here for the karma?

  18. Education? Who keeps modding parent up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Say what you want about Microsoft's lack of fair competitive practices.

    But you will be hard pressed to find any corporation their size that give as much back to global education AND global health care. Free PCs for entire school systems, money for AIDS research. How much do you think your friends at Google gave of their IPO profits?

    Oh...

  19. Re:Ironic by Fjornir · · Score: 1
    Watching an old Windows 1.0 "commercial" he did,

    Got Link?

    --
    I want a new world. I think this one is broken.
  20. Re:Ironic by UncleJam · · Score: 1

    Actaully that's ballmer. I've been on slashdot for too long today :(

  21. If you say India on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It means OUTSOURCING!!!!! Oh no, Bill Gates is outsourcing AIDS treatment. What about us!?

  22. Wtf... by autopr0n · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The X-prize isn't a government program. Why would the government spend $1 million on private research when they can spend $1 billion slobbing pork-fat all over the pockets of Halliburton and other government contractors, and projects in every district.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:Wtf... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would the government repeat its own accomplishments, decades after the fact? That would be a tragic waste of money.

      No one can look at Rutan's X-prize effort and conclude that it is anything the government hasn't already done...and the USAF and NASA did these things many decades ago. How hard is is to dig through the old archives and basically duplicate a spaceship and launch effort once you know it can already be done?

      Sorry, I don't see any innovation, just a lot of crowing about the "innovation of the private sector" and a lot of mental masturbation among the clueless about performance and technologies that are more or less ancient news.

      The real innovators of the technologies being demonstrated have mostly died of old age at this point. They are the people who did what had never been done, decades ago.

  23. Rutan is Angry by BisonHoof · · Score: 2, Informative

    Rutan attacks US policy of striving to keep space access limited to military superpowers, which he believes is evidence of the smothering of commercial activities in near earth space.

  24. Re:Education? Who keeps modding parent up? by PaulBu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How much do you think your friends at Google gave of their IPO profits?

    Hey, some free web searches for all the school kids, maybe? Or (wait!) for teens, and adults, and seniors as well? As in YOU and ME?.. ;-)

    And somehow they managed to do that even BEFORE their IPO! Must be sure that $$ are coming their way...

    Paul B.

  25. Re:Ironic by Fjornir · · Score: 1
    Lord and Lady! Please tell me that is faked or otherwise not authentic...

    /me won't be sleeping well tonight after that.

    --
    I want a new world. I think this one is broken.
  26. No heat by autopr0n · · Score: 4, Informative

    Orbital craft need to travel fast enough to orbit the earth. Fast enough to travel all the way around the planet in 90 minutes. That's why they come back in so fast.

    This craft is going to straight up, and fall back down. Much slower.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:No heat by Basje · · Score: 1

      That and that is also why orbital reentries are at the shallowest angle possible. If their reentry would be any shallower, they would bounce right off. It it was any steeper, braking would be much faster. Then, the brakes would get too hot, and burn up. The brakes being the heat shield, that would not be a good thing.

      As this craft does not have to lose this insane amount of energy by braking against the atmosphere, it can come straight down again.

      --
      the pun is mightier than the sword
    2. Re:No heat by cybpunks3 · · Score: 1

      I was wondering, what is the weight of ion drives?

      Would it be possible for an ion drive to slowly decelerate a spacecraft before re-entry? I'm assuming it wouldn't be able to slow the craft fast enough.

    3. Re:No heat by Schaffner · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry, you're wrong. SS1 is not going to go "straight up" and come "straight down". It will be going forward around Mach 3 and will be going in a parabola.

  27. Advertisements from space. by jfisherwa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why is it that we, as a society, have been so obsessed with the absurd idea that the height of technology in advertising will be the giant orbiting billboard?

    It would make much more sense to just beam advertisements straight to my dreaming mind. .. If the ads were from Playboy or Spice TV, I may even consider opting in. I probably wouldn't even mind drinking Starbucks in that ad--but please, keep Carrot Top out of this.

    1. Re:Advertisements from space. by iphayd · · Score: 1

      Of course, those ads for Playboy and Spice TV will immediately be followed by ads for Hanes Underwear.

  28. Re:Education? Who keeps modding parent up? by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Every thing that MS does is tied to getting MS sales. Do not pretend that it is purely out of generosity. Google is busing helping in the OSS world and making contributions to the real world without any ties of any kinds.

    Likewise, Paul Allen does the same (paul is not MS). Most, if not all, of his contributions do not have strings.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  29. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Grants/

  30. NASA screwing us again? by sdcmk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    " But, he says, ask the same question of Nasa now and the answer is the same as 30 years ago. Nasa is working on it and it will be affordable in 30 years' time."

    Yeah tell me about it, on the 27th NASA is going to do a dress rehearsal for the X-43 flight in October. Next month they are going for a new world record in the fastest jet powered aircraft in the world. The X-43 could have led to an airplane that can "fly into space" like Rutan mentioned as wanting to do in the article. However, from what I understand, NASA decided to cancel the successor of the X-43. Which is a shame because it is a very solid concept for finding a cheap way into orbit.

    This reminds me of the X-20? The successor of the X-15, that was planned to go into orbit. If Rutan, can succeed with a spacecraft that resembles the X-15 and enter orbit, I think that would show that NASA, in all it's wisdom, has held us back as far as manned space travel is concerned.

    1. Re:NASA screwing us again? by Nutria · · Score: 2, Insightful

      from what I understand, NASA decided to cancel the successor of the X-43.

      Because the Peoples' Representatives said "prioritize"?

      This reminds me of the X-20? The successor of the X-15, that was planned to go into orbit.

      Bacause the Peoples' Representatives said "Apollo and Great Society and Viet Nam" over "Apollo and X-20"?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    2. Re:NASA screwing us again? by The_Quinn · · Score: 1
      "NASA decided to cancel the successor of the X-43. Which is a shame because it is a very solid concept for finding a cheap way into orbit."

      "NASA" and "cheap" don't belong in the same paragraph.

      SpaceShipOne has operated on 20 million dollars private funding. About equivalent to a paper study in the NASA realm

    3. Re:NASA screwing us again? by Moofie · · Score: 2, Informative

      Air breathing space craft are still a bad idea.

      The reason is that they produce large amounts of drag due to the large cross-sectional area required to ingest air.

      No, you don't have to carry oxidizer, but you DO have to schlep a big draggy fuselage along with you.

      It's very hard to make the numbers come out better than a conventional staged rocket.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  31. Re:Education? Who keeps modding parent up? by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

    cool sig can i steal it?

    --
    Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
  32. Re:Ironic by timeOday · · Score: 1

    That's Ballmer not Allen. And though the ad is obviously meant to be a takeoff, it is funny to think where Ballmer and Allen would be be if not for MS (and not just to me). From a distance, they certainly seem to be real life Forrest Gumps - not retarded, just out of place at the top of the world. (Kind of like the current POTUS if I do say so.)

  33. Re:Education? Who keeps modding parent up? by WindBourne · · Score: 1
    cool sig can i steal it?

    I did. :)

    I have forgotten who had it (and probably thought it up), but it struck me as one the better ideas that I have seen here.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  34. Wow, what a coincidence! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe Burt Rutan should take a look into that service talked about in the previous front page story!

  35. Re:Education? Who keeps modding parent up? by grozzie2 · · Score: 1
    Free PCs for entire school systems,

    Microsoft gives free pc's to entire school systems when its part of the terms of settlement of a class action law suit. The courts determine a minimum payment level for proceeds of the class suit, and when the actual claims of the class participants dont meet that level, the balance goes to charitable things like buying pc's for schools. This has happened in california twice that I know of, and probably in other states as well.

    As for the google folks, well, they've had the ipo proceeds for a month now, which in reality are probably still mostly tied up in investment banker accounts awaiting various releases and transfers. It took Billy 20 years and the aquisition of a wife before he actually started doing any serious philanthropy. Come back in 20 years, see how Google fits into the corporate landscape, or if it even still exists, and then look at what the founders did after they had some time to adjust to the concepts of having hundreds of millions of dollars kicking around.

  36. SpaceShipOne Chat 'ready for launch'... by pandelirium · · Score: 5, Informative

    As many already know, Scaled Composite's "SpaceShipOne" is set to fly on Sept 29th, 2004 in the early-morning hours (Pacific-time) in it's first attempt to fulfill the requirements to win the Ansari X-Prize. Chat will again be available for the flight and the following flights as well.

    We had a VERY sucessful chat-session during the previous flight on June 21st and expect to have a good round this time for the X-Prize flights. The channel is open to all (we prefer you register/identify your nicks but is not a requirement for this channel). IF any 'over-flow' occurs, a back-up channel will automatically re-direct those as needed. A !news bot (Space.com) and !countdown bot is available.

    We also set another 'special' channel ( #SS1-FltData ) to record/display near 'real-time' Flight-Data from SS1 but the final decision is still not complete and not expected for the first flight-attempt. In any case, we expect to still have some limited data/info available. This channel is to monitor only, no chatting there, unless you are 'voiced'. The #SpaceShipOne channel is for that. ;) You MUST be a registered nick and identified in order to join this channel. There is no cost to register.

    The chat-server is located on the Freenode.net series. Point your chat-client to:

    -- Server: irc.freenode.net

    -- Channels: #SpaceShipOne and #SS1-FltData

    Hope to see you back there for the flights. ;)

    b>John B. -("Pandelirium")
    SpaceShipOne Admin/Ops/Moderator

    For other 'space-related' chat on Freenode, goto:

    - #space (general-combined channel)
    - #maestro (Mars Rover/SAP/Maestro Planning Software)
    - #cassini (Cassini/Huygens to Saturn)
    - #messenger (Probe to Mercury)
    - #celestia (3D Space/Solar-System Simulation)
    - #roverware (NexGen Rover/Planning Software development)

    1. Re:SpaceShipOne Chat 'ready for launch'... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The chat-server is located on the Freenode.net series.



      Great. Last thing I want to do is hear a plea for money from lilo while watching an historic event unfold.

    2. Re:SpaceShipOne Chat 'ready for launch'... by pandelirium · · Score: 2, Informative

      lilo will NOT be doing any such thing in #SpaceShipOne. They had a fund-raiser and it is not occurring at this moment. Please remember though, Freenode is provided for by user-donations mostly, which allows Freenode to be a FREE space to chat, available to ALL who wish to utilize it's services.

      Since Feeenode is such a professional-grade server-set with generally few peeps that just wish to disrupt things (unlike many other IRC servers out there), one can expect a courteous and friendly access and interactions there.

      That is why Freenode.net was selected for this very important task. ;)

      John B. (/nick Pandelirium) #SpaceShipOne Admin/Ops/Moderator
    3. Re:SpaceShipOne Chat 'ready for launch'... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please remember though, Freenode is provided for by user-donations mostly, which allows Freenode to be a FREE space to chat, available to ALL who wish to utilize it's services.

      Good point, since there are no other large free IRC networks out there. It's impossible to run one of them without reverting to an NPR style funds drive.

      (rolling eyes)

  37. Disgruntled Star Trek fan... by Sassquatch · · Score: 2, Funny

    Rutan's accomplishments pale in comparison to those of the late great Zefram Cochrane. Sure, Rutan will have fame and fortune, but will he ever get his own statue in Bozeman that looks to the very location in the sky where he made first contact? I think not.

  38. but isn't his design a dead end? by JoeBuck · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It looks like he's built a vehicle that has a good shot at winning the X-prize. But it's not like you could tweak the design a bit and make something that could go into orbit and then return to earth. It's strictly a suborbital vehicle and it needs gravity to re-enter.

    But he will get to see black sky during daytime. So maybe he can die happy.

    1. Re:but isn't his design a dead end? by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it needs gravity to re-enter.

      Umm... What doesn't?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:but isn't his design a dead end? by JoeBuck · · Score: 1

      What I mean is that there are no retro-rockets or braking mechanism, it just relies on gravity to come back down.

    3. Re:but isn't his design a dead end? by torpor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What is this obsessive-compulsive devaluation that you must cater to?

      Okay, today its a 'sub-orbital' rocket, but thats still better than yesterday. And maybe tomorrow he'll build a bus that can take 30 people up there and bring them safely again .. .. what then, naysayer? "oh, but orbit is crass, the 'real' space challenge is on the moon' ..

      Freakin' negative people. I swear. They are so noisy...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    4. Re:but isn't his design a dead end? by Inominate · · Score: 3, Informative

      You are quite wrong.

      Space-ship one is a suborbital vehicle meaning it goes straight up, and falls straight back down. Attaining orbit involves getting that high up, and simultaneously accellerating to some 20,000mph+, a feat which requires a hell of a lot more fuel than SS1 has available.

      An orbit is when you get going fast enough that you fall around the planet, instead of into it.

      There is also the problem of decelleration. The space shuttle has no retro rockets or anything. It uses it's rear-facing orbital maneuvering engines to slow down, and has to turn itself around to do so. Nothing SS1 couldn't do. However, the energy required to slow an orbiting spacecraft down using only rockets is immense. Because of this orbiting spacecraft use the atmosphere to slow down, which at 20,000mph generates temperatures which require special thermal protection.

      SS1 cannot ever achieve orbit. It's roughly the private equivalent of the X-15 project, the beginning of private manned spaceflight.

      All of that said, SS1 cost some $20 million dollars, pocket change to nasa or any military project. I wonder how much the same project would cost if NASA did it. Nowadays NASA is bogged down by bureaucracy, and controlled by PR more than anything. NASA should be dissolved and it's budget used in the form of grants to private space projects.

    5. Re:but isn't his design a dead end? by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1

      1) Win the X-Prize.
      2) Find investors.
      3) Add braking rockets to the system.
      4) Profit?

    6. Re:but isn't his design a dead end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Did you perhaps reply to the wrong parent post? The parent is in no way wrong...

    7. Re:but isn't his design a dead end? by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1
      SS1 and White Knight are part of what Scaled Composites calls "Tier One." According to some intarweb sources Rutan has said that there will be a Tier Two or Tier Three. Orbital? Highly probable, mostly due to the fact that Scaled Composites owns the designs to the Roton *and* (my personal favorite) the Delta Clipper.

      I was skeptical of Rutan's true goal (ooo, black sky), but after hearing rumors, I think he and others are going to do what NASA couldn't; bring cheap space access to the masses.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    8. Re:but isn't his design a dead end? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Space-ship one is a suborbital vehicle meaning it goes straight up, and falls straight back down. Attaining orbit involves getting that high up, and simultaneously accellerating to some 20,000mph+, a feat which requires a hell of a lot more fuel than SS1 has available.

      True. However, suppose you added a booster rocket to the SS1 design ? Or, since you're out of atmosphere at that point, you might even be able to use a nuclear salt-water rocket since the exhaust gasses would be shot parallel to ground at very high velocity, keeping them out of the atmosphere.

      And in any case, from what I read about SS1, it always seemed to me as more of a proof of concept than the final product. It's something you can show to people when asking for funding for the real thing: "Hey, I built that and it flies".

      There is also the problem of decelleration. The space shuttle has no retro rockets or anything. It uses it's rear-facing orbital maneuvering engines to slow down, and has to turn itself around to do so. Nothing SS1 couldn't do. However, the energy required to slow an orbiting spacecraft down using only rockets is immense. Because of this orbiting spacecraft use the atmosphere to slow down, which at 20,000mph generates temperatures which require special thermal protection.

      I wonder if you could use a "bouncy" approach: dive into the atmoshpere, bounce off leaving some of your kinetic energy behind, and radiate the heat away before diving again.

      The problems (that I can think of):

      1. As your speed decreases, each bumb becomes deeper, and you rise less high than the previous time. Can you loose kinetic energy fast enough to avoid being burnt to death before plunging to the atmosphere for good ?
      2. Can the spaceship take these jolts ? Not to mention the crewmembers ?-)

      I also wonder if we should just forget these wing-using shapes, and return to the capsule shape. Did any capsule ever break on re-entry ?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    9. Re:but isn't his design a dead end? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Needs gravity to re-enter.

      As opposed to orbital spacecraft, that use lollipops, right?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    10. Re:but isn't his design a dead end? by Forbman · · Score: 1

      Space-ship one is a suborbital vehicle meaning it goes straight up, and falls straight back down

      Errrrr if it did it this way, it would be a ballistic vehicle. But it doesn't, so it's not.

    11. Re:but isn't his design a dead end? by cjameshuff · · Score: 1

      Um...after the rocket burns out and before the vehicle gets deep enough back into the atmosphere to maneuver, it *is* a ballistic vehicle. (And so is everything in orbit, for that matter.)
      It's still a suborbital vehicle...it leaves the atmosphere, but never achieves orbital or escape velocity. "Goes straight up, and falls straight back down" is a pretty accurate description of its trajectory...the horizontal component is practically zero compared to what is necessary to reach orbit.

  39. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    only with the stipulation that they buy MS products.

    Bullshit.

  40. Re: Your classic mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't think Microsoft is giving much money for global health care. I think that it is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that is doing that. I think it's a big mistake to confuse the Microsoft Corporation with the Gates family. I appreciate the choices the Gates family has made for the disposal of their fortune, but it doesn't make me forgive Microsoft.

  41. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod parent to hell.

    Does the fact the Gates Foundation is currently one of the largest givers to AIDS research on the planet, to the tune of 5 billion or more, even register with you? Gates has given away more real cash than some on the top 10 list even have.

    tl;dr - fuck off troll

  42. True by jd · · Score: 1

    But I don't think causing eye-strain and repetitive strain injuries, as a result of Windows, were what the poster had in mind.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  43. Too Late? by pavon · · Score: 1

    You can no longer buy tickets online for their X-Prize launch. It did not say if they are available through other means - you should probably call the number listed on my link to check if you really want to go.

    Which is why I am glad I got my tickets the day it was announced :P

  44. Screw the X-prize. What about Aliens? by Schwarzchild · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Enquiring minds want to know why he believes in ET.

    From Wired magazine:

    He grabs a plate of mashed potatoes and roast beef and heads over to a floor-to-ceiling mural depicting three large white pyramids glowing against a lush tropical background; toward the front, a strange creature strides across a white veranda. The mural was painted a week ago, and everyone is ogling it. "Giza plaza, 17,000 years ago," he explains. "See, I think the pyramids were made by aliens before the last ice age, and the ice destroyed them and they were just put back together by the Egyptians." Is he serious? "I've seen them and I'm an engineer, and you can't tell me that the technology is ancient Egyptian. If you were a superior race and you knew your time on Earth was ending, wouldn't you build something really big so people would know you'd been there?"
    --

    "sweet dreams are made of this..."

  45. Amazing video of their first flight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Recently, one of the folks from Vulcan Ventures came to Microsoft to give a presentation about their space program. (Vulcan Ventures is the VC firm funding the program, and is owned by Paul Allen, co-founder of MS, which is why we got this special presentation.)

    We saw an amazing video: a 20-minute presentation showing their first space flight from beginning to end. Lots of tiny clips have been shown on the news, but in the video we saw, the entire space portion of the flight (from rocket fire to atmospheric re-entry) was not time-compressed. We heard every radio transmission, saw every moment of the acutal space time.

    It was amazing. Brought tears to my eyes. (Embarassing, when you're sitting with 80 other researchers.)

    There was a long Q&A session afterwards. They answered everything from techno-nerd questions about the details of some aerodynamics problem to visionary questions about the future of their program and what this means for humanity.

    It was the most moving and inspiring presentation I've seen in a long while.

    1. Re:Amazing video of their first flight by cybpunks3 · · Score: 1

      If they sold a DVD commercially maybe they'd make back some of their R&D.

  46. Scramjets have nothing to do with space access by XNormal · · Score: 3, Informative

    Don't get me wrong - the X-43 is a fantastic engineering achievement. It may pave the way for things like a mach 10 airbreathing cruise missile or possibly even a hypersonic jet transport. But it has nothing to do with access to space.

    A space launch is a short acceleration mission. You spend very little time at any particular speed. A scramjet is good for efficient and sustained cruising at a certain range of speeds. It's not effective for takeoff. It's not effective for accelaration to supersonic speed. It's not effective for acceleration from supersonic to low hypersonic. It's not effective for accelerating from its top hypersonic speed up to orbital velocity. It's only good for a specific range of hypersonic velocities.

    Current plans are talking about using at least three different types of engines to make a single vehicle that can make it all the way to space. This is an enormous penalty in weight, vehicle shape and configuration. It's doubtful if a single vehicle can be designed for all these different flight regimes and still be light enough to make it into space at all. But even if it can be done there is absolutely no way it can be cheaper. The development and operational costs of such a complex system will be staggering.

    In short, saying that scramjets are the way to cheaper access to space is a big fat lie and just an excuse for robbing the taxpayers.

    --
    Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
    1. Re:Scramjets have nothing to do with space access by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 3, Interesting
      In short, saying that scramjets are the way to cheaper access to space is a big fat lie and just an excuse for robbing the taxpayers.

      Not necessarily. (Even if it leads "only" to hypersonic transport aircrafts, it's good.)

      A big enemy of the space flight is the atmosphere. But it can also be a friend, when used properly. Why avoid multiple-stage system?

      Every day, thousands heavy airplanes take off all over the world and climb to 30,000 feet of cruising altitude. This part of the flight is well-understood and commercialized. Atmospherical oxygen means the airplanes don't have to carry oxidizer, the atmosphere itself supplies not only drag (which is bad) but also lift (which is good), so we don't need to lift everything by jets, which is not really effective.

      Once up in 30,000 ft, we can use a second stage - a smaller airplane, with smaller fuel tanks, sitting on the back of eg. an Airbus (I don't like Boeing, but you can use one too, if you have it). This plane can use scramjet engines, and maybe small JATO-style solid-fuel rocket boosters to give it a kick to take off the back of the carrier airplane and reach the scramjet-friendly speed (the Airbus then goes back to its airport and lands, as common for airplanes). This is the stage where X-43 comes to play. The scramjet is used to get the second-stage airplane as high and fast as possible. We still use atmospheric oxygen here, saving on the mass of the oxidizer, and we still exploit the atmosphere to supply the lift to our wings.

      Once we get too high for a scramjet, the atmosphere is too thin for both the wings and the scramjet (which is now a disadvantage for stage 2, but advantage for stage 3, which has much less drag to cope with). We jettison the second-stage (which then returns on parachute or by computer-controlled glide), and continue on a conventional rocket engine. (We face the change of density of the atmosphere with rising altitude, which is a challenge for the scramjet design - but maybe the designs where a shock wave acts as part of the engine could provide the necessary geometry changes.)

      We then return back in one of the ways available. I suppose the cheapest is the Soyuz-style approach, a reentry capsule with ablative shield and parachutes. That way we sacrifice part of the third-stage craft, but it can still be cheap enough to satisfy our purposes.

      What's bad on using different engines for different flight stages?

    2. Re:Scramjets have nothing to do with space access by cmowire · · Score: 1

      It's bad when the weight of multiple engines and/or airbreathing parts exceeds the weight, cost, performance, or maintenence penalties of just using a rocket with oxidizer.

      Although, given that none of the rockets using any sort of air-breathing stages except for standard jet engines in a carrier aircraft, so it's really hard to draw conclusions...

    3. Re:Scramjets have nothing to do with space access by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1
      It's bad when the weight of multiple engines and/or airbreathing parts exceeds the weight, cost, performance, or maintenence penalties of just using a rocket with oxidizer.

      I wouldn't underestimate the weight of the oxidizer. Let's use a simple hydrogen-oxygen system, and count with hydrogen fuel for all three stages.

      Oxygen is relatively heavy atom, its molar weight is 16 g/mol. Hydrogen atom is only 1 g/mol. To form one mol of water, we need two mols of hydrogen atoms, which is 2 grams, and 1 mol of oxygen, which is 16 grams. If we use oxygen from atmosphere, we have to carry only 11% of the mass of H2/O2 mixture.

      The less weight we have, the less we have to lift and accelerate, the less fuel in turn we need, and the less fuel, the less weight to lift. So by saving on the weight of oxygen we are also saving also on the weight of hydrogen. The lower we are, the more dense the atmosphere is. The drag caused by atmosphere depends on the aerodynamic profile of the body (which in turn depends on the amount of fuel we need, as big tanks are bulky, so lower fuel consumption saves here too), the atmospheric density (which depends on altitude), and the speed of the body. By splitting the problem to stages, and using a slow subsonic airplane for the lowest part in the most dense atmosphere, we save on the energy otherwise wasted on drag. (By using a commercial airplane we also save on a lot of R&D and maintenance.) The second stage, a lightweight airframe without much fuel, is then optimized for high speeds in thin air, which brings further savings as we have to do less compromises here. The third stage, well, it's a classical rocket - nothing to gain here. Both first and second stages are easy to be made reusable, which brings further savings (we don't have to do many engineering miracles here, as we don't have to deal with reentry from the orbit and the resulting massive deceleration and overheating - the potentially problematic part, engineering-wise, is the scramjet on second stage).

      Another advantage could be safety. In most situations, the abort is easier than shutting down a huge monstrosity full of liquid oxygen, with a solid booster on each side.

      Disclaimer: I can be wrong. I am not a rocket scientist. And even they sometimes are wrong.

    4. Re:Scramjets have nothing to do with space access by cmowire · · Score: 1

      See, again, there's not a lot of good answers here because nobody's tried them.

      I still think you are overcrediting scramjets. The problem is that, not only are they heavy, but you incur a lot of drag from the intakes. And you have to design the entire craft around the scramjet intake, which means there's a lot of design comprimizes to be incurred. And they need to be supersonic before they get going. And there's a lot of heating problems with a scramjet vehicle, because you are staying in the atmosphere for quite a long time. Your second and third stages are going to get awfully hot.

      Hitting 40-50k feet at subsonic speeds is good for a sub-orbital X-prize launch. However, it's a drop-in-the-bucket for orbital launch. The first stage really needs to go to supersonic speeds and probably to 100+k feet to make any sort of a difference.

      Now, the big thing to remember is that the heat of reentry scales depending on density. Any sort of space-shuttle-configuration design is going to have wretched reentry heat because it's very dense. A large but not-very dense craft can make do with a variety of reusable and durable refractory supermetals (Titanium alloys and such). This way, you slow down a lot more in the very fringes of the atmosphere before you have a chance to get hot.

      The interesting thing is that rocket engines are actually pretty good about reliability. The standard failure mode for a solid rocket booster is a casing failure, where it develops a crack in the side and either spews superheated gasses on the craft in flight or just suffers structural failure and explodes. Smaller solid rocket boosters can actually safely be shut down for abort modes, it's just that they didn't realize until too late that the shuttle wouldn't be able to work like that.

      With liquid rocket engines, generally computer control makes it such that they either shut down early or, worst case scenerio, they spew turbopump blades much in the same way that a jet engine spews turbine or fan blades -- something that can be fixed with careful engineering.

      The problem with the shuttle is that it's very hard to seperate the part you care about (the shuttle crew) from the rest of it, because they were pinched on the design. So you can't just jetison the SRBs a minute into flight if they fail. You aren't guaranteed that you can recover from a thrust inadequacy all of the time. And there's a bunch of stuff that *must* work, or else the craft will break apart before you could even hit the ejection buttion if you had one (like if only one SRB seperates -- it's instant loss of vehicle in a second or two).

      Whereas, if you designed a craft with the designed purpose of having more favorable abort options, it would be able to shut down the engines and glide down, just like most other flying vehicles.

      My personal suspicion is, if you wanted to build a reasonable yet not-just-incremental-improvement booster (I'll talk about the merits of incremental improvement a little later), the best answer is two simple-yet-fully-reusable stages, neither of which necessarily requires a scramjet. I'm thinking that you could probably make some combination of commercial jet engines for lower atmosphere, turborockets (a jet engine with LOX-injection at higher altitudes), normal off-the-shelf rocket engines, or aerospike rocket engines powered by dense fuels (Kerosine + LOX) get to a reasonable suborbital trajectory. And then a hydrogen-and-oxygen fueled reusable second stage that relies on being mostly empty on reentry so it can use simpler thermal protection materials. Which leaves you with somewhat understood problems in design, the only one that's especially hard is supersonic staging. If you have jet engines or turborockets, you have the luxury of spiraling up a la SpaceShipOne, assuring that you can suffer total thrust failure and still get home, instead of being over the Atlantic and relying on there being clear weather over on the Europe/Africa coasts. You have a single seperation event for a si

  47. Re:Ironic by It'sYerMam · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Point being, if you've got fuck loads of cash, then you can afford to pay £20,000 for 10 seconds in space. Space tourism just requires the public to be able to buy tickets to get into space - it's not far off, at all, IMHO.
    Think about it - if Rutan succeeds, then he's proved that his vehicle is reusable. This shows that that he can take people into space and all it takes from there is for him to take someone from the public into space.
    Space tourism isn't about taking people to the moon - that's definitely a long way off. The first bit is just getting people into space, and people will pay for it.

    --
    im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
  48. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Must... wash... brain

  49. Supply vs. Demand, Cost vs. Price by Jetson · · Score: 1
    Space tourourism (sp) is not a feasible buisness for many years to come imo.

    Business is feasible whenever you can sell a product/service for more than it costs to provide that product/service. After that threshold is crossed it's just a question of how much of a margin the customers will bear and how many sales are required to cover the start-up and inventory/overhead costs and provide a ROI to the capitalists. YOU may not be willing to drop $20,000 on a 1-hour hop but that doesn't mean there aren't thousands of other people wondering where to send their cheque. Just look at how fast the last Concorde flights sold out (at ~US$6000 one-way).

    The only way Rutan can be guaranteed to lose money is to stop now before generating any revenue.

  50. Re:Ironic by mattgorle · · Score: 1

    You can't buy that sort of comedy...

    And why couldn't you get windows if you lived in nebraska?

    --
    Slackware user since 1997.
  51. Will the revolution be televised? by Stridar · · Score: 1

    Anyone know if the September 29th launch will be televised or webcast live? I think this would be great for Nasa TV, and I would enjoy it as much as sitting through the Spirit and Opportunity touchdowns.

    1. Re:Will the revolution be televised? by Stridar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Answering my own question the Ansari X-Prize webiste has a link to a September 29th live webcast of the launch. The link is in the top, right hand corner.

      Currently, that link has videos of the other launches made by Scaled Composites. It looks like there is an external camera, a wing camera, and a cockpit camera. Hopefully they have all three rolling on Wednesday =)

  52. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Please re-read the article you posted and note the 1) lack of justification for the accusations and 2) blatant errors and 3) hostile tone.
    Afterward, step back and try to reconcile the conclusions of the article with the following facts. The B&M Gates foundation is an autonomous entity that has already been given the funds to operate, it has no reason to collude with Gate's to increase his fortune. Bill Gates has no more need of any money so has no real incentive to force TRIPS on any government, especially those in which there is no money to be made anyway. And lastly, that the donation of not only medicines, but the staff to administer it is better than having the country attempt to sell the same drugs at any price!

    I may agree with you that TRIPS is a poor treaty. We may even agree that the WTO makes an aggregious error requiring small, developing nations to honor the same standards for intellectual property rights that rich nations can afford. However, I would never attempt to spread such disinformation as presented in that worthless blog you provided to attempt to discredit a foundation that is clearly working towards such noble ends.

  53. Success of the X prize by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This really just demonstrates the successful strategy of the prize. It's imperative that the momentum isn't completely lost when/if Scaled Composites take the prize.

    That means a new, bigger, harder target next with a bigger prize.

    --
    Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
    1. Re:Success of the X prize by HughScot · · Score: 1

      This was an interesting thread. I'm no nerd or geek but I do have an interest in the success of Burt. I am a commercial pilot and many years ago I meet Burt at Oshkosh at the EAA flyin. He is a very nice person and not a self-promoter. As you all know he designed and built the airplane that flew around the world non-stop and it was flown by his brother and Jenna Yeager (no relation to Chuck). In any event the prize is only a goal, to be the first. The real prize is to commercialize flying into space. Hopefully the flights coming up will receive broader coverage from the media. For Burt it is about being first.....in my opinion.

  54. Re:Education? Who keeps modding parent up? by Performaman · · Score: 1

    Free PCs for entire school systems
    Yes. Like free crack from the Medellín cartel.

    --

    I have gas, but my car uses petrol.
  55. Brannigan's law by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Funny

    As for ET? Rutan hopes there is local life on other planets, because it would be fun to do what holidaymakers do: "interface them". -

    We have failed to uphold Brannigan's law; however, I did make it with a hot alien babe, and in the end is that not what man has dreamt since first he looked up at the stars?

  56. Re:NASA TV? by Migraineman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The only way I see NASA TV carrying coverage of the X-Prize competition is if there is a horrendous failure. Then they'll replay the disaster over and over, with the reminder that "we told you so."

    Rutan's already made many public statements about the liability that the NASA culture has become. NASA used to be the premiere space program, but degenerated into a self-serving bureaucracy.

    We can't expect substantial innovation out of NASA until something changes. Rutan's thrown down the gauntlet, and given them the big "you're Number One!" If he's successful, the budget-minded politicians are going to start asking "why are we funding NASA when the commercial entities are doing a better job?" As soon as the budget's on the line, NASA will be forced to change. But until then, expect the same lackluster performance out of NASA.

    Go Burt!

    btw, I checked the NASA TV Event Schedule, and there's a conspicuous gap between 27 September and 1 October. On the 29th, you'll be able to watch regurgitated videos of the ISS and other NASA programs.

  57. Re:Screw the X-prize. What about Aliens? by demo9orgon · · Score: 1

    If Mr. Rutan is motivated by pseudo-egyptian sci-fi and that gets our monkey-asses out of the gravity-well then please lets not forget that many things (the pyramids included) were built on the assumptions of people far-less educated than Mr. Rutan.

    I find the line between church and state a much greater cause for concern. Why do politicians have to keep saying that they're right and then name-drop a popular fairy tale/mythos? Yet all over the planet people are happy to do it all the time. I think it's a monkey problem. It's the secret handshake to excusable indulgences, and the exclusion of others. Esoteric belief-sets are not quite as dangerous as formally recognized ones. If Mr. Rutan was a duly elected official, pushing for a 1.2bn package which would create a pyramid/plateau in order to draw aliens to the country then we would have cause for alarm.

    One persons' devout beliefs are another's fairy tales. The problem with beliefs stems from the ability of people to stop thinking in order to kill the person who doesn't revere them also. Therin lies that danger of belief.

    --
    Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
  58. Re:Ironic by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

    The latest list of Billionaires puts Gates on top of the pile. Forbes notes that he is the #1 richest man in the world, despite the fact that he gave away more than 20 billion dollars through his foundation.
    And a lot of the things he funds are very worthwhile things, such as health R&D.

    We can hate the Windows OS. We can hate Bill Gates. But hating what he has done with a few billions of his own money is not justified.

    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  59. Re:Ironic by PierceLabs · · Score: 1

    Time travel scientist obviously worked there, had been to the future, saw it was 90+% Windows and lobbied to have it outlawed.

  60. read the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The BBC article this slashdot story references explains that Rutan says he was misquoted in that article. He doesn't believe aliens made them. He says merely that we haven't discovered the technology used to buid the pyramids yet. He doesn't believe it has to be alien technology.

  61. Re:Parent is wrong about everything-- Soveriegnty? by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    When do these Rutans join together under a newly-formed offshore nation? Imagine between NASA, the US and some other governments, and the various aerospace and satellite companies not wanting competition there is likely to be an "accident" planned.

    Now, if foul play is discovered, being an offshore nation means that the conglomeration can declare their meddling an "act of war" and respond in like kind.

    It is NOT the right or the business of the US government or any government to hold back civilian, private, commercial flights -- so long as plans a filed, certain orbital lanes are avoided, and no objects are tossed overboard to cause mayhem for other orbiting objects.

    It would be interesting to see NASA and the various governments LOSE "their" control over orbital or travel paths. If it is TRUE that NASA has been holding civilians back at the bidding of the government, then RUTAN... more powere to you. Defy them.

    Make your next plan long-term orbits.

    What I DON'T want to see, though, is governments and companies laying claim to plots of land on the Moon. We've got way too many problems to fix down here before we go that far. Proving we CAN cheaply orbit or return to the Moon is fine, I think, but once we demonstrate that feasibility for the umpteenth time, we need to pull our heads out of the sand and divert that resource of money to building more shelters, ridding us of tuberulosis threats, funding jobless or under-income entrepreneurs, and combatting rampant consumerism.

    Oh, I forget... building or subsidizing housing has less glory and bang on the return... What slew of investors would want to unload THAT amount of cash? (A few, but not nearly as many as could...)

    David Syes

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  62. Re:Screw the X-prize. What about Aliens? by huge · · Score: 1
    RTFA. The article states that he was misquoted.

    Recently, he was misquoted in a magazine interview: he was said to believe aliens built them.

    "I told them that I had spent half an hour alone in the King's chamber of the Great Pyramid," Rutan explains. From his engineering perspective, his conclusions differed from what Egyptologists said.
    --
    -- Reality checks don't bounce.
  63. info: #SpaceShipOne-overflow is backup channel by pandelirium · · Score: 1

    Since there is an issue with the automatic-overflow feature, the backup/alternative channel is openly available if it is needed by #SpaceShipOne chatters. IF the main channel fills (there will be no limit imposed), it will not re-direct you to the other channel.

    It is named #SpaceShipOne-overflow. The same rules applies to this channel as the others.

    Also, to those who are not sure how to use IRC, you can go HERE to learn more about how to set things up and use IRC commands.

    ** Windows users!: If you are not sure what client you may need, I personally recommend "X-Chat" as it is fairly easy to set up and is VERY user-configurable. It can be downloaded from http://www.xchat.org/download/
    This program is available to a wide variety of other platforms/OSs as well.

    John B. (/nick 'Pandelirium')
    #SpaceShipOne Admin/OPs/Moderator
    http://www.pandelirium.net

  64. spirit of "Right Stuff" continues by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Rutan's effort harkens back to the days of the individualistic test pilots captured in Tom Wolfe's book The Right Stuff and movie spinoff.
    No more boring NASA-bots.

  65. Re:NASA TV? by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

    Would be hilarious though if Rutan has been holding back, and flies SS3 instead... they could make a surpise trip to the ISS and do the whole unwelcome guest thing. Eat all the cheetos, steal the remote ontrol to the TV...

  66. Oshkosh by gr8_phk · · Score: 1
    I saw Burt and Mike speak at Airventure2004 in Oshkosh. 2 hours of great stuff including fantastic video - well worth the trip. Anyway, he said a couple times that he'd "really really like" to bring SS1 to Oshkosh and raffle off a pair of tickets to ride into space during the show! He seemed skeptical but hopefull about getting the OK to do it. I expect the following at Airventure2005 in decreasing likelyhood:

    1) They bring SpaceShipOne
    2) They launch it during the event
    3) He gets to send a couple ordinary folks

    Oh, and 0) Burt will have a lot to say which will be very interesting.